9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have made any further adjustment dehors the provisions of Section 115JA of the Act. Nothing contrary brought to our knowledge on behalf of revenue. Facts being similar so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to conquer with the finding of CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 33,91,715/- as discussed above. - Decided in favour of assesse. - ITA. No.2052/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav And Shri Anil Chaturvedi JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri M. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shailendra Kumar Yadav, J.M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, same is dismissed. 3. The only issue survives with regards to addition of ₹ 33,91,715/-. Assessing Officer stated in assessment order dated 22.11.2010 on this issue as under: 8.1. have carefully considered reply of the assessee and not found acceptable. On the issue of adding back of prior period expenses, the assessee has only furnished details of expenses and allow ability of these expenses has not been explained by the assessee. Perusal of the details furnished by the assessee reveals that expenses claimed are on account of salary, interest, stationery, insurance, travelling, etc ... which are related to years ranging from 1999-00 to 1998-99. 9. These expenses are to be disallowed since these do not relate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT. (63 TTJ 697) ITAT Delhi in case of Innovative Tech Park Ltd vis. ACIT (79 ITO 445) where it was held that prior year expenses should not be deducted in computing book profit u/s1158J. Accordingly, as discussed above the figure of claim in the computation of income of ₹ 33,00,641/- as prior period expenditure and extra ordinary items is revised as under:- 1. Prior period expenditure (not allowable as discussed above) Rs. NIL 2. Loss by fire (as discussed above) Rs.79,46,926/- 3. Credits in respect of excess provision for Income tax (as per reply of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as under: 3.3 I have considered the facts of the case; assessment order and appellant's submission. In this case the revision order under section 263 was passed by CIT setting aside the assessment to the assessing officer to consider prior period items and difference in tax provisions debited. Appellant did not appeal against the order of CIT under section 263 and therefore revision order is final. Assessing officer noticed prior period items claimed by the appellant which as per the decisions of ITAT referred in the assessment order are not deductible from book profit. Appellant argued that it contained extra ordinary item including loss by Fire also. However it is seen that assessing officer considered loss by Fire allowable wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA Nos. 1146 1518/Ahd/2011, wherein similar issue has been decided by Tribunal in favour of assessee by observing as under: 21. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd.(supra), the question No.1(C) before the Hon'ble Court was as under:- (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing to reduce the prior ITA No.1146/Ahd/2011 (By Assessee) and period expenses of ₹ 71,16,879/- for the computation of taxable income u/s.115JA of the Act, 1961? 21.1. The Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd.(supra) and allow this ground of assessee's appeal. 4. In view of above, we are not inclined to concur with the finding of CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition of ₹ 33,91,715/- made to book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. We find that Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 06-07 allowed the appeal by following the decision of CIT vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that material aspect of Tribunal s recording the fact is that amount of ₹ 71 lacs was reduced by assessee passed on after approval of company in its AGM, which was also accepted by the auditors. If that be so, the Assessing Officer thereafter could not have made any further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
